Drug takers = Supporting Gang Land Ireland?

Elmo

Minister McDowell has stated that he blams Drug takers for Gang Land Ireland. And that Drug takers are supporting murders according to one of the Tabloids. (I generally don't read tabloids, and in true tabloid readship I only read the headline).

A. Did he actually say this?

B. Should he legalise some Drug sales and use? i.e. Cannabis.

Personally if drug sales and use were controlled we would be better off.

In one of the Local Rages they have a page dedicated to Court proceedings 10 out of 12 were in relation to cannabis use. Is it not a waste of court time?

tbh

The OP wrote:

Is it not a waste of court time?

it is in my opinion, tbh, but I think you'll find this splits opinion. I think that Cannabis is a gateway drug because it's lumped in with all the chemical drugs. Kids hear horror stories all thier lives about drugs in general, and then one of the gang tries pot, eats loads and giggles for hours. He tells his mates "its cool, no problems", they all try it, and assume that, because hash is 'ok', probably speed, e, acid etc are ok - and they guy that got the hash will probably know a dealer, who they now trust more than the authority figures who told them hash would kill them. Whatever about legalising drugs in general, imo hash really needs to be treated differently than other "harder" drugs, because it is different.

All my own opinion, I know others will be diametrically opposed to what I've just said. fair enough.

AARRRGH

He did say it and he is correct.

But it's a simplistic cop out.

Keeping drugs illegal is also responsible for drug gangs. etc etc.

The costs on society of trying (and failing) to prohibit cannabis are far greater than the costs of on society of legalising it. Keeping it illegal doesn't make sense even from a pragmatic point of view.

strassenwolf

Interesting that the device in the car at the centre of the M50 disruption last night seems to have been a continuity IRA bomb to be aimed at some hood in the drugs world.

The battle for the high moral ground goes on.:rolleyes:

It's Dr. Headbutt

I might have been unclear, sorry. Law should be decided in terms of societal welfare(in the economic sense). If it does not benefit society to have that law in place, it should go.

Even excluding that there a case in terms of natural rights could be made for the legalisation of cannabis.

Elmo

Interesting that the device in the car at the centre of the M50 disruption last night seems to have been a continuity IRA bomb to be aimed at some hood in the drugs world.

Minister McDowell will write something in the Times about that or else go on Pat Kenny.

Mr Headbutt, are you trying to imply that laws of a state should be decided by the expense required to keep those laws in place?

They aren't apporaitely funding these laws anyway. If they want the laws then spend the money don't just use Drugs as a sound bite.

25% of those progressed to cocaine and 25% of those to Heroin and 75% of those to prison or early deaths?

But sure Alcohol and Taboc are gateway drugs too. If your to go down that road. Let face Cigarettes and Beer are as illegal to a 16 year old as cannibis and other HARDER drugs

tortega

tortega wrote:

Cannabis is a gate way drug to hell. Dark forces are at play when one tampers which such substances. Surely it wouldn't be good for societal (that even a word) welfare if everyone smoked cannabis and in turn, 25% of those progressed to cocaine and 25% of those to Heroin and 75% of those to prison or early deaths?

http://www.answers.com/societal&r=67

hottstuff

they either take this activity out of the criminals hands and regulate it , or else let them kill each other and whoever else gets in the way be it a garda or passerby.

unfortunately i think the latter will happen before they make a move

Seth Brundle

Elmo wrote:

A. Did he actually say this?

Dunno, but nothing from him surprises me.

Elmo wrote:

B. Should he legalise some Drug sales and use? i.e. Cannabis.

Personally if drug sales and use were controlled we would be better off.

In one of the Local Rages they have a page dedicated to Court proceedings 10 out of 12 were in relation to cannabis use. Is it not a waste of court time?

Solving the drugs issue is more complex than a simple yes or no.
It is true that a lot of crime is drug related as users need to raise money to be able to buy. Also when the gardai make seizures, it reduces the supply and therefore the users need to steal more to get more money to be able to buy.
If drug use was legally controlled then you are removing the control from the dealers [and at the same time making drug use safer for users].
Another point is that what the users steal neds to be sold. Who buys this? Are the people who call to my door every 2nd day selling things from toilet rolls to DVDs to couches selling stolen or counterfeit goods? Are these sellers somehow involved in organised crime? Its for this reason that I will never buy something that I believe to be stolen!

However, legalising drugs is not an option for a politician due to electoral fears.

mike65

Drug takers = Supporting Gang Land Ireland

The answer must be yes as they are the suppliers.

Mike.

Cake Fiend

caimin wrote:

they all try it, and assume that, because hash is 'ok', probably speed, e, acid etc are ok

And whose fault is that? Maybe if people such as McDowell didn't have such comically ridiculous overreactions towards drugs, lumping cannabis in with heroin and cocaine as 'all evil drugs', maybe the curious youth of Ireland wouldn't feel lied to so much.

caimin wrote:

who they now trust more than the authority figures who told them hash would kill them

Spot on, this (IMO) why it's so common to see people experimenting with other recreational drugs after discovering cannabis. If people took a more responsible and realistic approach to classifying illegal drugs to adolescents, explaining that there is indeed a difference between cannabis and ecstasy for example, then maybe trying one recreational drug wouldn't feel like such a door-opening experience leading to further curiosity to other inappropriately scandalized drugs. The government is crying wolf without good reason, and young people don't believe them anymore.

dublindude wrote:

it's a simplistic cop out.

Keeping drugs illegal is also responsible for drug gangs. etc etc.

Exactly. If the only place people can buy drugs is from drug gangs, then of course they're supporting drug gangs. QED. If the government took a more responsible approach to e.g. cannabis, instead of the current bury-head-in-sand approach, this wouldn't be such a problem. McDowell is a dinosaur.

w66w66

Ian o'Dothery of the Irish independent claimed that if you read in between the lines about what McDowell recently said about drug user's supporting criminal gangs, you will see he was possibly advocating legalisation.

Elmo

having said that, i have no proof that this is true.

Well then don't say it.

What is the % of alcholics in Ireland?
What is the % of Drug Addicts in Ireland?

however, you can't have the attitude, drugs are bad, but so is drink, but because drink is legal one must allow drugs.

Why not?

Again teenagers are the most at risk of actually using drugs, for the majority of teenagers Drink, Cigerettes and Drugs are equally as illegal. Therefore with in teenage cluture their must be a follow on from Beer to Smokes to Canabis to Heroin. Perhaps not in that order.

Ian o'Dothery of the Irish independent claimed that if you read in between the lines about what McDowell recently said about drug user's supporting criminal gangs, you will see he was possibly advocating legalisation.

Well then why not just come out and say that legalisation needs to be changed. Sure McDowell says what he thinks. Of course only when it useful to him politically.

Most shops that sell booze are unlikely to be selling e tablets. Maybe the reason cannabis is a gateway drug is because it is illegal.

w66w66

w66w66 wrote:

Ian o'Dothery of the Irish independent claimed that if you read in between the lines about what McDowell recently said about drug user's supporting criminal gangs, you will see he was possibly advocating legalisation.

Does Ian O'Doherty remind anyone else of a fat over-opinionated taxi driver?

Elmo

Most shops that sell booze are unlikely to be selling e tablets.

I was sure thats were you got e's

Uthur

Prohibition simply does not work. When they banned alcohol in America
back in the 30s the result was that the gangsters got rich and people
kept boozing. People wanted to drink and banning alcohol didn't stop
them.

Banning drugs now has had the same effect. The gangsters are making
a fortune and people are still taking drugs. Lots of people want to take
drugs - that's a simple fact! Having it illegal never has and never will stop them.

It is estimated that about 25% of folks in the UK do cocaine on a
regular basis. if 1/4 of the population want to do it then it it is
madness to try to stop them!

It is time to end prohibition - it never worked and it is not working now.

mike65

[Quote:]
Ian o'Dothery of the Irish independent claimed that if you read in between the lines about what McDowell recently said about drug user's supporting criminal gangs, you will see he was possibly advocating legalisation.

Well then why not just come out and say that legalisation needs to be changed. Sure McDowell says what he thinks. Of course only when it useful to him politically.

Because advocating the de-criminalising of drugs is politicaly taboo, you might think its common sense but the vast majority of housewives and golf club members would be horrified, and they are the ones who vote!

Mike.

Elmo

Because advocating the de-criminalising of drugs is politicaly taboo, you might think its common sense but the vast majority of housewives and golf club members would be horrified, and they are the ones who vote!

That was my point. Thanks.

Anyone have a copy of what he said?

mike65

mike65 wrote:

Because advocating the de-criminalising of drugs is politicaly taboo, you might think its common sense but the vast majority of housewives and golf club members would be horrified, and they are the ones who vote!

Mike.

Why do you go to the effort of typing "Mike." out after every post ?

tbh

tortega wrote:

indeed, i've never met a cannabis user who doesnt drink alcohol or a heroin addict who doesn't drink beer. However, the % of alcohol users (and abusers) what go on to abuse other drugs is low compared to that of cannabis users who go on to abuse other drugs.

having said that, i have no proof that this is true.

however, you can't have the attitude, drugs are bad, but so is drink, but because drink is legal one must allow drugs. I'd be in favour of proabition.

With respect, if you don't have figures, don't quote your assumptions. I know the point you are trying to make, but I could pick a million holes in your argument without really trying.

Are you saying you'd be in favour of a total ban on alcohol and tobacco?

cormhag

the truth is that i, or my friends may never have tried other drugs if we did not know dealers. we knew dealers from cannabis. if you had to go to a dealer to get yer drink the likelyhood is that you would be tempted to buy another drug as well. having said that, the only drug that seems to have caused problems for my friends is alcohal.

mike65

Deleted User wrote:

Why do you go to the effort of typing "Mike." out after every post ?

Sheer flipping habit!

Mike. oops.:o

Nevyn

kbannon wrote:

However, legalising drugs is not an option for a politician due to electoral fears.

But this will changes as the electoral demographics change.The majority of people under the age of 30 will have at least tried hash, with the death of the
old relible votes who are 60 plus a lot of things will start to change.
A push to legalise canabis could just be the thing to get more 'young' people
registered to vote and out lobbying, that is if it is headed by someone sensible.

Legalising and taxing cannabis will hit the gangs where it hurts and bring in more
revenue. It would be a good cash crop for a lot of farmers.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

But if you legalise cannabis you take away a big source of cash from drug dealers. Cash which is useful in funding the more capital intensive cocaine "business". By allowing drug dealers to cash in on the black market for cannabis, the government could be said to be supporting gang land ireland. The goverment has proved to be nearly completely ineffective at stopping criminals from supplying this black market, so why no just get rid of the "black" element of the of the market. The "black" element being the element which allows the criminals exist in and control the market in the first place.

Kone

Can't a person grow cannabis for personal use with involving these evil 'drug gangs'?

No, it's against the law.

AARRRGH

You know, as someone who started smoking hash at age 11 (16 years ago), and who is reasonably experienced with drugs (again, in my teens) I want to say this -

The phrase "xxxxxxxx is a gateway drug" pisses me off.

WTF is this bull****? It's like another marketing phrase.

Why is there such a thing as a gateway drug?

When I buy Adidas shoes will I eventually upgrade to Nike?
When I buy an Oasis CD will I eventually upgrade to the Beatles?
When I start drinking beer will I eventually upgrade to Poitin?

It's a totally nonsense phrase used by people with no clue.

Gateway drugs. What bollox.

Dave!

Sico wrote:

And whose fault is that? Maybe if people such as McDowell didn't have such comically ridiculous overreactions towards drugs, lumping cannabis in with heroin and cocaine as 'all evil drugs', maybe the curious youth of Ireland wouldn't feel lied to so much.



Spot on, this (IMO) why it's so common to see people experimenting with other recreational drugs after discovering cannabis. If people took a more responsible and realistic approach to classifying illegal drugs to adolescents, explaining that there is indeed a difference between cannabis and ecstasy for example, then maybe trying one recreational drug wouldn't feel like such a door-opening experience leading to further curiosity to other inappropriately scandalized drugs. The government is crying wolf without good reason, and young people don't believe them anymore.



Exactly. If the only place people can buy drugs is from drug gangs, then of course they're supporting drug gangs. QED. If the government took a more responsible approach to e.g. cannabis, instead of the current bury-head-in-sand approach, this wouldn't be such a problem. McDowell is a dinosaur.

Yeah, this guy's got it

I'm sure the majority of hash users don't particularly want to use harder drugs, and they don't particularly want to fund criminal gangs -- but unfortunately the government's archaic laws mean that they don't have a choice. I think it's about time the country moved forward and legalised cannabis.

Time Magazine

It would be better for society if tobacco had never become a socially acceptable thing, not least because it's carcinagenic.

Ditto cannabis, not least because it can treble the chances of neurological disorders.

Simply because something's not working as it is illegal does not mean legalising it will help. Would decriminalising murder help? Now I know murder is ethically wrong and it's debatable whether cannabis usage is, but that's another matter. I'm just pointing out that there are already people ignoring laws, and legalising it would not help.

And dublindude, I can respect that you haven't evolved into a junkie and stayed on the straight and narrow. But whether you like to accept the empirical evidence or not, many people (not necessarily a majority or whatever), but many people do who use cannabis go onto stronger drugs. If you'd like to take a good test statistic to test this hypothesis, derive the number of specific junkies who tried cannabis first; as opposed to the number of people who have cannabis and evolved onto stronger things.

And regarding hitting the drug dealers: Amsterdam, gangland capital of Europe. My hypothesis on the reason for this is:
a) People who gain money from drug use tend to be scumbags. It's rare you hear of a very nice, amicable, pacifistic local drug dealer.
b) Liberalising the activities of these scum will not get them into the social norm.

And yes, of course, those who try cannabis are responsible for the trade, and ultimately the consequence of that trade.

Amazotheamazing

No one's really answered why drugs were made illegal in the first place. Like most people I've heard the (laughable) "hemp was a wonder substance" argument, but no-one (who believes drugs are harmless) comes up with a compelling case as to why drugs were banned in the first instance. It isn't as simple as the government hates people having fun, since they don't ban other sources of fun like drink, smoking, funfairs, women etc.

Too often the focus is on why drugs should be legalised without ever addressing the reason behind prohibition in the first place. Any suggestions?

samb

And regarding hitting the drug dealers: Amsterdam, gangland capital of Europe. My hypothesis on the reason for this is:
a) People who gain money from drug use tend to be scumbags. It's rare you hear of a very nice, amicable, pacifistic local drug dealer.

So put them out of business, legalise.

I'm just pointing out that there are already people ignoring laws, and legalising it would not help

So make laws that are largely enforceable.

But whether you like to accept the empirical evidence or not, many people (not necessarily a majority or whatever), but many people do who use cannabis go onto stronger drugs. If you'd like to take a good test statistic to test this hypothesis, derive the number of specific junkies who tried cannabis first; as opposed to the number of people who have cannabis and evolved onto stronger things.

So seperate the supply of cannibas from that of harder drugs, just like alcohol is.

Daithio

Elmo - McDowell did say what you think he said. In an odd way his approach to drugs is almost refreshing; he's trying to appeal to drug users' sense of morality in an attempt to stop them from using. But then again, it could be viewed as completely patronising and blame shifting. This is the way I find myself interpreting his stance. He doesn't have a clue. His parliamentary ramblings about drugs appeal to the muppets that will vote for him and carry him through the next election, but in reality he has no interest in finding the route of the problem which runs alot deeper than a few southsiders snorting a line of coke or rolling a joint.

Elmo

Elmo - McDowell did say what you think he said.

I only read a report in one of the tabloids. I am not sure what he said. Regardless its a good discussion. I would actually like to read what the man has to say for a change. Can anyone get their hands on what he said?

he's trying to appeal to drug users' sense of morality in an attempt to stop them from using.

Okay I don't think a drug habbit is going to have morality attached to it. I am sure "moral" drug addicts are not out robbing people.

But then again, it could be viewed as completely patronising and blame shifting.

I would have to read what he has said, no matter how much I would like that to be true.

but in reality he has no interest in finding the route of the problem which runs alot deeper than a few southsiders snorting a line of coke or rolling a joint.

I would say that most of them voted him in.

Also I am hugely igornant about drug use. I don't do drugs. But I am guessing that a line of coke is much worst then a joint?

Ditto cannabis, not least because it can treble the chances of neurological disorders

Has this been proven, what research has been carried out?

Alcohol shouldn't be acceptable because of what it causes, liver problems, stomach problems etc.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bagdaddy

Uthur wrote:

Prohibition simply does not work. When they banned alcohol in America
back in the 30s the result was that the gangsters got rich and people
kept boozing. People wanted to drink and banning alcohol didn't stop
them.

Banning drugs now has had the same effect. The gangsters are making
a fortune and people are still taking drugs. Lots of people want to take
drugs - that's a simple fact! Having it illegal never has and never will stop them.

It is estimated that about 25% of folks in the UK do cocaine on a
regular basis. if 1/4 of the population want to do it then it it is
madness to try to stop them!

It is time to end prohibition - it never worked and it is not working now.

Who the **** estimates this. Post a source for that becase there is no way a 1/4 of the population of the UK take cocaine on a ''regular basis''.

Elmo

Who the **** estimates this. Post a source for that becase there is no way a 1/4 of the population of the UK take cocaine on a ''regular basis''.

Yeah thats every one between the ages of 15 AND 35. and prob a few 12 year olds.

"Did you know that more people die from smoking related illnesses the from doing Heroin."

Taken from Clueless the TV Show on one of there after school special, mmmmm Hello! but more people smoke.

Time Magazine

samb wrote:

Angry Banana wrote:

And regarding hitting the drug dealers: Amsterdam, gangland capital of Europe. My hypothesis on the reason for this is:
a) People who gain money from drug use tend to be scumbags. It's rare you hear of a very nice, amicable, pacifistic local drug dealer.

So put them out of business, legalise.

You failed to point out the second part of what I said, namely that liberalising the activities of these knackers is not going to suddenly transform them into becoming respectable members of society.

So make laws that are largely enforceable.

The law is enforceable and is a deterrent to cannabis use. If you want to make use (which is shown to have serious carcinagenic and neuologically devastating consequences) more attractive, or rather less unattractive, to people you should legalise it. People are arrested for possession every day. Yes, the percentage of people caught is minimal compared to extent of its possession, but that's the same with drink-driving and speeding. Ergo liberalise drink driving?

So seperate the supply of cannibas from that of harder drugs, just like alcohol is.

Aside from the fact that cannibas is more damaging than alcohol, and alcohol is already a plague on so many people; cannibas, if only by societal and traditional influences rather than scientific, will always be less socially acceptable than alcohol. It's possession and use shall permanently be associated with deviance.

Time Magazine

Elmo wrote:

Has this been proven, what research has been carried out?

I read it in the Irish Times or Independent about a month ago. Can't provide the source because it I'm not going to look through the newspapers for the last six weeks!

Dave!

Angry Banana wrote:

But whether you like to accept the empirical evidence or not, many people (not necessarily a majority or whatever), but many people do who use cannabis go onto stronger drugs. If you'd like to take a good test statistic to test this hypothesis, derive the number of specific junkies who tried cannabis first; as opposed to the number of people who have cannabis and evolved onto stronger things.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth13.shtml

"Most users of heroin, LSD and cocaine have used marijuana. However, most marijuana users never use another illegal drug."

Time Magazine

DaveMcG wrote:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth13.shtml

"Most users of heroin, LSD and cocaine have used marijuana. However, most marijuana users never use another illegal drug."

Read my test statistic: how many people who use heavier drugs used softer drugs first.

The figures are distorted by people (teens, college parties etc) who try soft drugs for all of 3.2 seconds having had no prior intention, but for evermore fall under the bracket of "those who have used". Another fairer test statistic would be those who used soft drugs regularly to those who went onto heavier drugs.

Uthur

bagdaddy wrote:

Who the **** estimates this. Post a source for that becase there is no way a 1/4 of the population of the UK take cocaine on a ''regular basis''.

The British chief of police said so last week. That's who.

CiaranC

Angry Banana wrote:

Aside from the fact that cannibas is more damaging than alcohol, and alcohol is already a plague on so many people; cannibas, if only by societal and traditional influences rather than scientific, will always be less socially acceptable than alcohol. It's possession and use shall permanently be associated with deviance.

How is cannabis more damaging than alcohol? Go look up statistics on deaths, admissions to hospital, road accidents, violent crime and domestic violence. Alcohol is a huge factor in these, cannabis doesnt feature.

Your assertion that cannabis 'possession and use shall permanently be associated with deviance' is laughable. Maybe in the backwater you come from that is the case, but in cosmopolitan modern Ireland cannabis is used and accepted by practically all sections of society.

Time Magazine

CiaranC wrote:

How is cannabis more damaging than alcohol?

It's carcinagenic and it's neurologically damaging.

Go look up statistics on deaths, admissions to hospital, road accidents, violent crime and domestic violence. Alcohol is a huge factor in these, cannabis doesnt feature.

Nor does the rising oil price. Alcohol is infinitely more prevalent in society than cannabis, is also far more public, and is not associated with a necessitous caution of authority so of course it leads to greater statistics. If you'd like to provide adequate figures for neurological dysfuntioncs and bodycounts from carcinagens relative to regular use then we can debate statistical analysis.

Your assertion that cannabis 'possession and use shall permanently be associated with deviance' is laughable.

Whyso?

Maybe in the backwater you come from

Mods? . Doesn't this amount to personal attack through location?

Speaking of the water I live on, it's the Liffey. All of 1 mile from the Dublin border. And seeing as I spend about 12 hours every day in college in the city centre my locality can hardly be called backwater. Try to refrain from stupid personal abuse without knowledge about such please. It doesn't add to the debate.

that is the case, but in cosmopolitan modern Ireland cannabis is used and accepted by practically all sections of society.

Right. Now that's laughable. Let me just name sections of society who do not accept cannabis use: doctors, nurses, lawyers, gardaí, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, teachers, academic world, social workers, neuroscientists.

CiaranC

Let me just name sections of society who do not accept cannabis use: doctors, nurses, lawyers, gardaí, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, teachers, academic world, social workers, neuroscientists..

I know several Gardai who condone cannabis smoking. Same with teachers, nurses and members of FG and FF. Same with social workers. You are suggesting cannabis is not used in the Academic world? Gimme a break.

Lots of things people do are damaging to their health. Its my choice what I do with my body, and Im sick and tired of listening to PC nazis telling me what I can and cant do. If I want to eat a huge slice of cake, or drink 6 pints of beer, or smoke a damn joint then I will. People like you with a chip on your shoulder about it with just have to accept the fact that this has been the case since the damn of humanity, and always will be. Havent people got better things to do than preaching their self righteous twaddle on the internet?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

CiaranC

Decriminalisation wont eliminate the black market economy for drugs. Only legalisation will do that. Whatever small chance their is for decriminalisation of cannabis, the notion of legalisation of cocaine is unlikely to the point of hilarity.

So we'll just have to live with the current situation forever.

Time Magazine

CiaranC wrote:

I know several Gardai who condone cannabis smoking. Same with teachers, nurses and members of FG and FF. Same with social workers. You are suggesting cannabis is not used in the Academic world? Gimme a break.

Oh well please forgive me for not taking your personal anecdotes as empirical evidence. In fact, let's just disregard my anecdotes of the Gardaí who think it's a secret bane on inner-city areas; teachers who see kids failing to concentrate in school daily; nurses who have to treat the physciatrically disabled; the FG TD who wants stricter importation laws and massive investment in scanning technology etc; the FF'ers who have maintained the status quo for essentially the last twenty years. And do you really think this guy uses drugs often?

Lots of things people do are damaging to their health. Its my choice what I do with my body

Yes it is, but I believe the state has a mandate to stop people from causing harm to themselves. Is it so unfair to enforce people to wear seatbelts? Or to operate on children of Johava Witnesses?

and Im sick and tired of listening to PC nazis telling me what I can and cant do

Viva la revolution :rolleyes:.

If I want to eat a huge slice of cake, or drink 6 pints of beer, or smoke a damn joint then I will.

If you want to assert the argument that eating a slice of cake is analgous to smoking a joint; I'll assert the argument that the illegality of the possession of certain substances (as defined by law, passed by elected representatives) that are damaging to you is akin to enforcing the wearing of seatbelts.

People like you with a chip on your shoulder

Post reported.

People like you with a chip on your shoulder about it with just have to accept the fact that this has been the case since the damn of humanity, and always will be.

And people like you have to accept that fair government intervention in people's lives has been the case since the development of democracy.

Havent people got better things to do than preaching their self righteous twaddle on the internet?

No. The chip on my shoulder is too burdensome for me to go out, I look retarded. Cop on, it's a debating forum and I enjoy debating and broadening my mind through intellectual battles. If you don't want to debate your side, nobody will stop you leaving. That said, nobody will hear you if you do.

Sorry for straying off-topic in the last couple of posts.

CiaranC

Yes it is, but I believe the state has a mandate to stop people from causing harm to themselves.

:eek:

Preumably you think contact sports should be outlawed by the state also? What about mountain climbing? Or do you not hold an arbitrary grudge against those particular form of human behaiviour? Who gets to decide - you?

The state has no mandate to interfere with peoples behaiviour as long as it does not infringe the rights of others.